Can God be defined?

I find that after debating with many people, many don't have a definition of what "God" is. (For even when you go to a church many people have different definitions ; and not many have a "shared definition".) And I find that many people only list Gods, but (and correct me if I am wrong) that listing gods is just like listing various variations of Meats or dogs, you still haven't told me what a "dog" or a "meat" is! Or for that matter : What "God" is!
Also on the same matter, I am genially interested, what is the definition of "existence"?
Because these two issues are vital to the debate : "Does God exist?"
And I hope this question will be taken in good spirit, and that no offence is taken.

Closing Statement from Bernard White

God mostly only have subjective definitions. (And very few have a "shared (objective) definition" of what "God" is!) And usually reflects the moral code of that individual! (And the society's values).
Yet God does hold many mystical properties, and is sometimes defined as emotions such as "Love", which is dependent on the human mind and relies in all of us.
While others choose to define God as being more of a "Personal God", which is external (independent) to the body, A God of intervention.
And other choose to define God as a more of a Impersonal God, one of pure logic and maths. (If I can say that!)
However I will not comment much more, due to the fact that I have a feeling I would not do a good job of it!
This is my closing comment. :D
Hope you liked it!

Mar 21 2013:
Scott,
I LOVE your comment, and feel that it is very true. If we (humans) spent as much time on evaluating ourselves, as is spent with the question of god/no god, it might be helpful to our global community:>)

I like to "BE" HERE NOW, and experience all there is to experience in the here and now.

Are we NOWHERE? OR NOW HERE?

It seems like these debates that go on and on about god/no god take us nowhere, while being fully aware and mindful in the life journey reminds us of being now here.

Mar 23 2013:
To be honest I would probably ask Shakespear, what he meant by "Good" and "Evil".
Because yes in a literal sense, there is no such thing as "Good" and "Evil". While once you have a definition of those things, then certain things can become "Good" and "Evil".
:)
Will explain this in more detail later!

Mar 23 2013:
Perhaps you need to explain something to yourself Bernard? Do you ever think that you may be making things more complicated for yourself?

Since you mention Shakespeare, I assume you are refering to Scott's other comment...
"For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
-Willie Shakespeare"

There is no reference to "evil" in the quote.
My interpretation of the quote, is that we can think about something, constantly coloring it with our own perceptions, and "make" it :"good" or "bad" in our own perception.
"

Apr 2 2013:
Will be spamming this message to all those who I think may be interested. (I want to raise awareness) I hope nobody minds "too much" :D : (To all those on these links such as : Can we define God)
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks.

Mar 23 2013:
What does worrying about the future achieve. It achieves a will to prepare and try and fight against the future, it achieves the ability to try and make the future a better place, so others won't have to worry about the future.
While being optimistic ensures you ability to see your worries through and hope that you can conquer them.
Your memories teach you what you should be worried and optimistic about. (From your own subjective experiences)
And your perception (living in the present) makes you more aware.
Just a few thoughts.
I mean past present future to the human mind is memories, perception, and imagination.

Mar 23 2013:
Hi Bernard,
Why do you choose to "fight against the future"?

"Fighting against the future, and making an effort to "make the future a better place", are two different concepts.....are they not?

I don't have any worries, so there is no need to "conquer" worries. Personally, I think/feel worrying (disturb something repeatedly; torment; persistent or nagging attention or effort; mental distress...agitation; anxious; unceasing or difficult effort), is a waste of precious time and energy.

We can plan for a future, dream, imagine, and work toward making the future better for all of humankind. Worrying uses time and enery that can be used for more productive purposes.

No Bernard, my memories DO NOT teach me what I "should" be worried about. Memories certainly can provide lessons, and it is a choice regarding how I use that information. If YOU choose to use it as a reason to worry, that is up to you my friend. I see worrying as a misuse of MY time and energy, so worrying is not my choice.

Mar 23 2013:
I'm afraid I have a slightly odd view of what you are saying, because I agree and disagree at the same time :)
I mean I agree that "living in the present" and "optmism" should probably be encouraged, yet I do not think that happiness is a choice. I view that "choosing" to try and "achieve" happiness, increases the likelihood, but does not guarantee.
While I do see how you could train yourself to become "more happy", and become more of an optimist.
If you act out upon your worries, then I honestly don't see what is bad about worrying. I mean if you just "worry" then it probably doesn't achieve much.
I feel that we could have different definitions of worry though. I mean with happiness, I view that it can be "achieved" and made more of a mean, rather than an end. (So in that sense I agree with you).
Humans will always synthesise happiness and be poor predictors of what make them happy, while I can see your logic. Sorry to go on....
I am finding this quite difficult to explain. :)
(Did you watch those TED talks I gave you the link to? :
Tali Sharot: The optimism bias :http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html
Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness :http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions :http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
I apologize if I am not making "complete" sense.
Actually after thinking about it : I suppose you can teach yourself to be a satisfier. (Reference : Paradox of Choice!)

Mar 23 2013:
Dear Bernard,
What you describe....agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, is sometimes called the "split". It happens sometimes when people are bridging the gap between old and new thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs. It feels like you are exploring?

I believe that happiness is a choice for ME. If you do not want to embrace that concept for yourself, it's ok:>) As I said to you in another comment....there are no guarentees in life.

Being happy is not a matter of "training" in my perception. It is a matter of "being".

I don't think I said that worrying is "bad"....I said it is not useful to me. If you feel that it is useful to you, then carry on!

The definition of worry I provided is from the dictionary.

Yes....I agree.....happiness is a way of travel....not just a destination.

I don't think it is accurate to say that "Humans will always synthesise happiness and be poor predictors of what make them happy..."

When we KNOW ourselves, are mindful and aware in the moment, we do not struggle or worry about happiness/contentment. It simply IS.

Mar 23 2013:
Actually after thinking about it.
I would probably have to admit I was wrong.
And that happiness is probably a choice in "most" cases, and it increases the chance of produticity and happiness. Yet it still doesn't guarantee happiness.
While I can't help but think : if happiness is a choice, why aren't more people happy. And why do people seek material gain if they "know" it probably won't make them any more happy?

Mar 23 2013:
Hello again Bernard,
Here's another idea. How about being kind and loving with yourself and "admit" that you are a human being, exploring thoughts, feelings and ideas?

I believe life is an exploration, and as we take in information from various sources, we have the opportunity to re-evaluate how the information impacts us. It's kind of like carrying baggage throughout our life experience. At each "station", we can re-evaluate what we want or need and maybe re-pack our baggage.....make any sense?

You're right.....there are no guarantees in the life adventure.

You ask..."if happiness is a choice, why aren't more people happy"?

Could it be that some people do not believe it is a choice? Like you did not believe it is a choice?

I suggest that those who are seeking material gain, thinking it will make them happy, are simply not ready to consider anything else. Sometimes, when people get "stuck" in their beliefs, it feels comfortable, and they are unwilling to explore another idea. Some folks do not want to consider different ideas because it is outside their comfort zone.

Consider one of your questions in this discussion for example...""Does God exist?""

Personally, I have been evaluating information since the time I was a child 60+ years ago. I was born into a catholic family, 12 years of catholic schooling and bible study, abandoned any religion and belief in a god for about 20 years. sustained a near fatal head injury, had a NDE/OBE, explored, studied, researched, and practiced several different religions and philosophical beliefs for about another 20 years, and with the information I have at this time, I do not believe in a god.

That is simply MY story and perception, and there are many stories and perceptions with different individuals. Some people will try to convince us that what they believe is the one and only "right" belief. That simply tells me that they do not have a very open mind and heart. In my perception, life is a journey....an exploration.

Mar 23 2013:
I'm not sure if I am repeating myself : But concerning God's existence I'm not really sure what to call myself....
I mean I'm a cross between Ignostism (I believe that God and existence haven't really been properly defined) an strong agnostic (I view it can never actually be know,due to the fact that there isn't any way to prove or disprove any "Gods", and the fact that no matter how logical and rational something may seem it doesn't make it "true", just likely). Also my belief that so many things on life rely on "faith" (e.g Trust) rather than empirical evidence. I mean sure you can trust someone bases on certain assumptions (e.g their nice therefore they are "probably" trustworthy) but this doesn't mean that it is certain. I mean my definition of "Belief" is "most probable" and in that sense nothing is "certain".
Just like I can't be "certain" that the external world exists, but "objectively" it is probably the best option to live my life as if the external world exists, because if I acted out upon this belief outside a philosophy classroom you would probably be put into a mental asylum. (basically it does no harm to live your life as if other people + the external world exists/ is real)
I would be interested in your opinion on this. :)

Mar 23 2013:
" Can you let that idea "rest" in your mind and heart?".
Yes, and in an odd sense it makes me "happy"! :) Because it makes so much more logical sense to me.
While this is not to say that we shouldn't make decisions and act "objectively" the best we can with the data and knowledge we had. And to be prepared to admit you are wrong, and allow all opinions (pluralism). As I have said there is no harm living my life as if everybody exists, even though this can't be certain.
Actually there is a good specific detail : If something is logical and rational does that make it 100 % true? Or does it just make it more probable? :)
I mean it is logic (and I may be wrong on this) that "low expectations lead to more happiness, because you would never be disappointed" but this is false (to a certain extent, even though there is still debate about this). Or here is a better example :
1. All elephants are pink
2 Lucy is pink
3. Lucy is pink, and all elephants are pink, therefore Lucy must be pink.
Now this is a rational and logical conclusion, due to the data you have, but is false once you bring in more and more data. I mean I am sure you could probably produce a better example yourself.
This is why I feel that business is quite unpredictable!
While I hope I have not got this example wrong, so in that sense "logic + Rationality" can be wrong. Another example would be : Before evolution was discovered, It would be irrational and illogical to view that evolution was true, why? Because there was no "evidence"! But This wouldn't have stopped evolution from being true! :)
I hope I have explained this well enough.
Would be interested on your opinion about this...

You ask..."If something is logical and rational does that make it 100 % true? Or does it just make it more probable? :)"

With the idea of something making sense to us and "feeling" good, consider that we all may have different information and preferences. What feels good, logical, reasonable, and rational to one person, may not feel the same to another person because of the information they are willing to consider.....make any sense?

Based on the information I have at this time, it makes no reasonable, logical, or rational sense to believe in a god. A person who believes in a god, may say NOT believing in a god makes no reasonable, logical, rational sense. That's why I often refer to "my truth", which is a belief that is "true" to me, based on the information I have at any given time.

I agree with you...low expectations, or no expectations may lead to more happiness/contentment because you would not be disappointed. Why do you say this idea is "false"?

I think/feel it is true, and I observe that unhappiness and discontent often manifests BECAUSE of our expectations, which may not be consistant with reality.

LIFE is unpredictable my friend. As soon as we discontinue trying to predict and expect, we may experience more happiness/contentment.

Example:
23 years ago I was a competitive athlete, actor, singer, dancer in the best physical and emotional shape I had ever been in my life. I was honored by an international group as a "woman of the 90s", very active in the community and with my family. I felt like I was on top of the world. One day I went horseback riding, and regained consciousness two weeks later in a child-like state emotionally and physically.

If I had been "stuck" with my expectation that I was in great shape and on top of the world, I probably would have been very disappointed. However, I had embraced the idea that life was about learning, so that's what I did...make sense?

Mar 25 2013:
Very interesting indeed!
However if you have watched the optimism bias, there are conflicting pieces of data.
Tali Sharrot claims that low expectations can become a self-self-fulfilling prophecy and that it changes your perception and has data which suggests that even when people do well with low expectations they claim "they were just lucky" and don't take credit for it.

Actually a lot easier way if for you to watch :
Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice:http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Tali Sharot: The optimism bias:http://www.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias.html
These two contradict eachother a lot. Yet they are both rational and logical assumptions from the data they both have...
I like your idea of a sort of "subjective truth" (from the data we have, rational and logical conclusions).
While I do believe in objective truth and morality, partly because I believe that defining morality is subjective, but once you have defined it it can become objective. (Even if there isn't a God) while we may not know it, but it is still there. In the way is beating your child going to encourage emotional growth? Probably not. You need to test your moral "hypotheses" and rational for them. And if you find they are wrong, try and correct them!
Out of interest : Would you say I am irrational?
Because Gail (formerly TED lover) keeps claiming that I am being irrational by claiming that "rationalization" is the fundamental cause of suffering, and that defining evil as : "An intentional action to harm someone physically, mentally or spiritually" as irrational as well.
But I am not sure how this is irrational at all!
I mean there are many definitions of happiness and "God" (as we have seen). And he is basically saying (to my interpretation) : If you don't agree with my preconceived definition you are irrational. I am finding it hard to understand his point of view! I was hoping you could help.

Mar 25 2013:
Sorry to go on!
But how did you get so many TED Cred points? :D
Also the reason I feel you could help me understand GAIL is because in some area's you had quite similar thoughts.
I mean my rational for Rationalization (Rationalizing your actions)being the heart of all suffering and evil (and not desire) is because :
1. You desire to have a pencil.
2. You steal the pencil
3.. You realize it is just a pencil so it is okay to steal it and nobody will mind.
You would only 3rd step if you could do the 3rd step!
While yes desire is the fundamental cause of most things, but it is also important thing for pleasure and various other positive actions!!
I mean rationalization of your actions can be achieved in lots of ways. E.G :
1. The person i stole the pencil from deserved it (a slight dehumanization)
2. Everybody was stealing pencils.
3. I was ordered to steal a pencil/ had no choice.
4. I was tired and I needed that pencil.
5. Nobody stopped me from taking the pencil so it must have been okay.
6. I helped someone from stealing the pencil.
7. It was only a pencil! Get over it! :D
I mean there are many ways we can "rationlize" our actions.
I hoped I have explained this well enough!.

Mar 28 2013:
Bernard,
Re: TED Cred....as it says in our profile....it reflects a person's participation on TED. I've been participating on TED for quite awhile, and based on the feedback I get, it appears that some people agree with the ideas I share:>)

The only way I might help you understand another person, is to suggest that you listen ......really listen and hear. More words, in defense of your argument is not always the best way to understand another person.

That being said, what are you trying to express in the comment above from the first number 1 to the end? If you could put all that in a couple sentences, what would it look like? What is the message or question?

Mar 28 2013:
I see your point. :).
To be honest I would probably agree with you in the way that there is usually conflicting pieces of data for most things.
What am I trying to express in number 1 to the end. I suppose all the different way you can rationalise your actions about stealing a pencil.
I really like your thoughts though about judging people. Seems pretty accurate a s reasonable to me.

Apr 2 2013:
Will be spamming this message to all those who I think may be interested. (I want to raise awareness) I hope nobody minds "too much" :D : (To all those on these links such as : Can we define God)
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks.
I would be very interested in your opinion, and input in this subject Colleen Steen.

Mar 21 2013:
I honestly don't know for now.
I mean concerning God I would probably call myself an "ignostic" until you define God (which very few do) and then become an "strong agnostic" once you define God. And my own definition of God would sort of be a pantheist approach. Sorry to go on a little there.
Now with the "Do you perceive any Difference between the words Pleasure & Joy?". Hmmm. I can imagine pleasure being more momentarily than joy, but from pure intuition they both sound roughly the same. But I suppose I would need to know your own definitions to tell you if I perceive a difference. (Sorry to not give you a very clear answer! :) )

Comment deleted

Apr 10 2013:
The Ego is the only thing that is vain. Are you the Ego? If so, where did you come from? Only the Ego claims itself as the Ultimate Self. Quality of enquiry is the key. The ego Strives and a settles for tidy explanations........that reduce the likelihood of Deeper investigation.

Apr 12 2013:
I think, the nature of God is in his name: "I am who I am" as given in Genesis 3:14. God is an abstraction of "self". I think, "God exists" is a tautology because God is existence. What else can "I am" mean?

What drives evolution? Survival. Can the concept of "survival" be separated from the concept of "existence"?

I could expand on this, but, I think those who spent some time thinking about it (and the meaning of symbols like "the kingdom of heaven is within", "life through death", virgin birth - without a physical father) understand what I mean.

Apr 12 2013:
Tautology cannot be solved. E.g. "This statement is true" is an absolute truth. It's a self-consistent, self-evident statement which refers to itself and affirms its own truth. It cannot be logically analyzed because of the self-reference. If it's true - it's true. If it's false - it's false. Whatever you believe. It can only be accepted or rejected, without proof. But it remains "true to itself".

Comment deleted

Apr 12 2013:
I realize that the virgin birth is a symbol. It's not to be taken literally. But it's OK to profess the faith in the literal meaning. Autosuggestion is one of the cornerstones of faith. Everyone understands that when Catholics eat the Eucharist, they don't literally eat the "body of Christ" thus committing cannibalism. It's a symbol of spiritual unity with Christ and each other through His "body" (church), by literally "internalizing" (eating) it. But Catholics still insist that literal transubstantiation takes place. I view this autosuggestion as a perfectly valid way to "internalize" the unity - literally and figuratively.

Red color often symbolizes blood on flags of many countries and the flags are often said to be "red with blood of the heroes" who fought for whatever ideals of that particular country - same kind of metaphor.

Usually, people are born from a biological father who is "like myself", but "not myself" - a distinct and different human being. I guess, metaphor of virgin birth conveys the idea that divinity does not come from "something else", distinct from itself.

In the same way, logic can show how the truth of one statement follows from the truth of another statement. But logic cannot validate itself, much like science cannot tell us what constitutes a scientific theory. Logic, science, and Bible are much like the sentence "this statement is true" - take it or leave it, and live with the implications.

These references to "self" are impossible to explain without absurdity. So, if what I write doesn't make sense, I can understand. It's the same "take it or leave it" kind of deal :-).

Mar 22 2013:
God has already been defined. God is a character described in the Bible.

If God were human, he would be called a sociopath and kept away from society. But he is God, so he is worshiped by the sheeple who are afraid to refuse to do so.

God is a cruel sadist who loves to hear screams of torment - as demonstrated by his willingness to throw unbelievers in hell. As humankind has been around a long time, and as Christianity is in great decline, the number of people writhing and screaming in tormented pain is growing at a rapid clip. As God is omniscient, "He" is well aware of the suffering and screams, and as more and more are going to hell, the volume is increasing. God is also omnipotent, so "He" has the power to close down Hell, relieve the suffering, silence the screams, and blot out the memory of the torment of "His" victims. But "He" chooses not to. "He" appears to enjoy watching and listening to suffering. He is also a misogynist. His hatred of women is especially pronounced.

Any description of God must include this documented description. As many who are afraid of Hell worship the tyrant and are ashamed of doing so, they pretend that God is something other than the monster that the Bible describes. They do this in order to block out their conscience that tells them how wrong this is - all in the name of survival - so they can live with themselves. This is where disagreement about God comes into play - even in a single church. But if you speak of God (as opposed to Thor or Mithra or Pele, etc.), "His" own book describes "Him" well enough.

Good thing "He" doesn't exist.

Consciousness exists though. Consciousness is not God, though it is much more than a brain in a body.

Mar 23 2013:
" God is a character described in the Bible".
Then what are the Greek Gods? (+ Egyptian, Norse, Roman Ancient Gods ect...)
Are they are just "pretenders" (/ not Gods) due to them not being the "character described in the Bible"?
Or do you have a different definition for them? Please tell me if I have misunderstood your position. :)
Because going by the Christian definition you have posed, the Egyptian Gods seem very different. (I might be wrong on this!) While not all Gods do promise an after life of punishment if they go against them. I mean there are many religions where they believe only in a positive after life, but it is interesting to note that you view this is a requirement. So if I was to pose a hypothetical scenario, of a being of extreme power who was the original creator and sent everybody to heaven afterwards, I am assuming by your definition then this wouldn't be a "God"? (Is this right?)
Would be interested to see your response.
While I feel that you are putting "God" (from your definition of an egocentric (/narcissistic), psychopathic being which has extreme power :p) in a slightly bad light. Even though I would be inclined to agree with you.
However it is interested how some can view the same "God" you are describing as a saviour and light bringer, and view that "only God would know what is good" (So in that sense a prejudice against "non-believers" may be good), and that maybe "Gods utility is the only one which matters!". Just a few thoughts.

With your last point, it would help me if you could define "Consciousness" and "existence" and "real". Because I don't think it is logical to assume that just because you are self- aware then you real (/exist). (You could be a computer program and ticked into believing you are self-aware, and yet not really be "real", in the sense most people use the word.) I could be very wrong on this though!
While also how do you know :
1. That the external world is real? (/exist?)
2. That other people are real? (/exist?)

Apr 2 2013:
Tangible proof of The existence of God will never be found.A one-size-fits-all definition will ever be agreed upon.
It is a highly personal conversation that plays in ones mind. On one single occasion, I shared my story of God talking to me while I was in a coma. The general consensus of the small group was essentially that it was me talking to me, my subconscious comforting me. I simply nodded for how in the world would I explain or prove my experience to truly be the voice of God? Would it matter to this group that I had fearlessly questioned this experience open to the possibility they were correct? No. I innately knew It was God. My personal definition of God is unconditional Love.

Mar 21 2013:
Hello Bernard. I wrote an answer for you, but it was about 5 times bigger than I am allowed to post. I tried to edit it down, but it just got silly.

I wish I could include all the philosophy and science that goes into my answer, but will go with just the summary:

1. Science has shown (even if Dawkins and Hawkins act like they don't know this and many other intelligent people live in denial) that 98% of the universe is made of matter we don’t know the first thing about, there are multiple dimensions around us that we can’t see, and the rules of the universe act nothing like the rules we take for granted.
2. Philosophy tells us to question what reality is, saying it is only what our senses tell us, and it is different for every person.
3. I can’t better explain what God is to you, than I can explain calculus to a Cat. That cat’s understanding of Calculus will be about as accurate as our understanding of God. But in a world with so many unknowns, anything is possible, and there is logic in the system, and that is the shadow of God, and all we can know of him.
4. Douglas Adams had it right when he pointed out that the answer was easy, it was the question we didn't understand.

In my long explanation, I could not even hardly begin to illuminate how God can actually, really be so many things, even things that contradict. But it isn't a provable thing. It is a thing that can't even be completely understood. The first step in understanding God, in understanding your question, is to get comfortable with the idea that we are the cat, and he is the calculus.

Ohh.. and the same answer applies to our existence. If you had an email, I can send you my philosophical ramblings. Maybe you will find some light in them. I am always looking for someone who "gets it" to share my ideas with. But when your idea that we have no idea, the water is very murky, but I forge on!!

Mar 21 2013:
I use to think there were things beyond our ability to grasp but i dont believe that anymore. I feel that the ability to imagine, as corny as this may sound, is what will allow us to understand and comprehend anything and everything. But at that point we'll just wanna press reset because by then its like.....whats the point.

Mar 21 2013:
Well, there is now and there is the future. There is no way to know what we will be able to understand in the future. But now? Everyday we learn new things that show what we DON'T understand. I don't mean things we don't know. I mean things we can't conceive. This is simple fact. We can find ways around it, I hope. THAT is the power of our imagination. But I believe that being more intouch with what we CANT understand will help us understand it. Like the black hole. We had to theorize it first. Then say "good theory, but too bad you can never prove it since it is invisible." Without that process we would not have understood it. But in reference to God, it is fair to say, we can't understand him now. And knowing everything is impossible since everything is infinite. But I think I get your idea.

Mar 21 2013:
As far as the future goes there are some guys out there that would beg to differ. There are some people that believe time is a tangible thing. Its funny how people put limits on ourselves that is untill somebody breaks em. I say if theres anything that god would ever dam, it would have to be limits on what we think were capable of.

Mar 22 2013:
I know.. I like messin around with the conversation but i am very genuine in that what i say is what i truly believe as silly as it may sound(no offense taken) i am silly. But i feel that humans have the capacity and ability to understand it all and i think and believe imagination makes that possible. Thats how powerful it is. On a side note the holy trinity is very interesting to me , though i could not agree with all of the bible because i have not read it like that there are some ideas in there that i definitely find interesting and add to my own beliefs.

Mar 21 2013:
God is a collective.... of all things. Gods the biggest schizoid of us all. God made it all happen. Omg. God bless and godspeed goddamit. GOOOD GOD!!! you know if ou spell god backwards its......... ok,ok that was dumb..im finished now.

Mar 22 2013:
Nathan.... Your silly...
Obey, in my understanding of things (meaning we don't have much understanding) God is something we can only understand a little about. Absolutely everything around us points to this, even bibles and sacred texts of other faiths. If it is yours, or Bernard's goal to find some complete understanding, I think you are taking on an impossible task. Of course, that doesn't make it an unworthy one. As the journey is the destination (or however that goes).

Does God have a mind? Well for us, in our language, Mind and brain are not the same, but they are connected. So no, he doesn't have a mind in our understanding. Of course that leaves an infinite number of possibilities -1. What I see as the problem, kind of built into the question, is limiting God to being one thing. The idea, he can't be this if he is that. As long as your thoughts on such a trail, you probably won't get much farther than a very long and possibly entertaining philosophical discussion. One that can go on for thousands of years actually.

But I think I get the point about mind, past the semantics issues. I would say he does in that there is (many believe) reason in the universe. Not that is all he is. The "God as the order of the universe." But that would be one aspect of what he is.

I would say very few people would say he is a person, or just a state of mind.

Mar 22 2013:
I must admit, the I have though of seven possible answers to the "Do you believe God exists?" question:
I know "It" does...
I think it is most probable
I do not know whether it....
I will never know whether it...
I think it is most improbable that it....
I know that it does not exist...
I don't care.... (The indifferent answer)
In my opinion these are the seven answers you can really give.
So in that sense it isn't that simple.
But defining existence(I mean 2 definitions i like are "has energy" and "has impact".) and God does seem to be problematic. I mean (as I have mentioned in an earlier reply to someone) if I defined God as the universe, we would all have to deists, unless you viewed the universe (external world) as being improbable, or you viewed that you would never know.
While you are assuming that "God" (Whatever that is. :p) is logical, I mean why does it have to be logical, why can't it defy all reason and rationality and create the "square circle", or be a multi dimensional being.
I mean the possibilities are endless when you go into the hypothetical realm of what it "could" be.
I hope this helps.
BtW if it helps, you can send me your answer at "Bernardjawhite@gmail.com" or you can just send me your answer in "parts" (E.G part 1, part 2) on this conversation. (Which I believe is probably the better option.... Because all can participate that way :)

Mar 13 2013:
The idea of God,
with attributes of power, knowledge, presence and love, is not something that exists.
It just is.
And this 'just is' can never be shown, proven, found and perhaps understood.
Understanding one, two, three or four of these attributes is simply something that 'just happens" and one is either present and experiences it, or is not present and misses it, whatever it is. It, just is.
Religion and science are both wrong about their explanations of who we are, what this all is, and how it really came to be and why. Neither can really prove anything they say, so they both must be wrong in some very fundamental way and neither can see this because of certain tenets they dearly hold onto for fear of losing their bearing or importance.
Both tell we humans that there is more than the material, and that appears to be true, but neither can truly prove, show and then name their claims.
For instance, one gets a scratch, looks at it, sees it's minor and goes back to what they were doing, simply trusting that whatever "it is", it will heal the scratch. And it does. Science can look at the cells involved in this healing, looking deeper and deeper, smaller and smaller until there is absolutely nothing left to look at, nothing left to see and they will never be able to say, "there, that is knowledge, that is how "it" knows how to heal. There, that is power, that is how it is able to heal. There, that is love. That is why it heals." But both science and religion can point to that nothingness and say, "It works. It really does," yet there is nothing there at all. Nothingness that just is.
Everyone who has ever lived, all those now living, and quite possibly everyone who will ever live, has had, is having and will have, the experience of the "scratch". Each one is the Empirical evidence for such a thing.

All this is just writing. Just thoughts, and that is what god is; a thought. Nothing more. A thought is consciousness, awareness, and that is life itself.

Mar 13 2013:
I'm interested by your opinion : So God isn't anything physical? Like energy? (Unless you think of a thought as being energy....) And assuming that energy is something physical.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts BTW :)

Mar 14 2013:
Hi Bernard.
I don't know.
It seems to me that this thing we call life, being alive, is simply a state of awareness of being aware, I guess. That is consciousness. Being aware of being aware.
I think it really is that simple.
This awareness or this consciousness is simply a thought.
That's what reveals that one is conscious, i.e. alive, as we color it with a word.
So, this is so huge, that we can & do manifest what it is we think, is akin, to my mind to what this idea of a God or God would be. I have to keep things very simple in order for me to understand anything in life. I am not very smart, nor am I very intelligent.
When you use the word God, you are using a thought, speaking it, thinking it and what is it humans turn to when they need to, for whatever reason?

Usually they are looking for the right thought, so if God is that simple, it is also easy and simple to turn to it when doubtful, in need, troubled, stressed, overwhelmed or in the midst of other types of emotions and situations where and when a human doesn't know what to do. Seems to be out of ideas.

The right answer will come and it is only up to the person to see whether or not they truly understand what it is they believe in, trust it, and also then, do not worry about it.
At this point I feel most don't either know what it is they say they believe in, or they don't really trust it with complete abandon, meaning, they don't really believe it. If they worry, then they don't trust it which also means they don't really believe it.
The idea of the scratch was first delivered to me many years ago by Deepak Chopra. I have internalized it into my own understanding (my own use) and added a couple of thoughts but the idea of the knowledge, love, power, is solely from his brilliance, not mine. But now, I own it for me.

I don't practice positive thinking. I am good at negative thinking but it is no good for me.
So, I practice "pausative thinking". Pause when agitated and ask for the right thought or action.

Apr 11 2013:
The definition is the word "God" : God is what you believe, yet you cannot define. You cannot define everything with words. It is something like happiness. Words are not enough to define it.

Apr 10 2013:
Hi Bernard,
My personal opinion about God is that you can't see Him with your eyes or prove scientifically. You just believe, and if you believe, because your heart tells you to do this. Your heart just needs something bigger to believe, something beyond reason. I really don't know what God is, and I think nobody knows. But, for me, God can be everything and He can be everywhere.

Apr 6 2013:
I think that each and every one of us has our personal definition of "God". Some of us might be able to put it eloquently into words, some of us may have to explain in gestures, there are others who might just fall into silence realizing that they have never thought of God as having to be defined before, and some opts to define God stereotypically, and the list goes on forever. If you're asking for an exact definition, I honestly do not think there is one. And in truth, those who believe in God(or gods) do not necessarily need one. but if your question is 'can God be defined?' my answer would have to be yes. personally, the existence of God coincides with my faith. God is the sum of my experiences, perspectives and faith. It is easier to say that who I am gives me the answer to what is God, and how I define Him.
Additionally, I feel like after a certain point in life you just realize that it is not important if you can define God, and you no longer questions his existence because something inexplicable has grown within yourself. and that we look into ourselves to find the answers rather than elsewhere. I hope that makes sense, and I apologize if my response is a bit off-topic somehow. Thanks for bringing this argument up.

Apr 6 2013:
Hi There!
I understand what you mean. We and It become 'entangled'. It becomes difficult (and unimportant) to try to figure out where It ends and we begin. And that is what It and we really want!
Cheers'
Jordan

Apr 6 2013:
Can a quark define a human being? No, it does not have the ability on any level. The problem in trying to define God is found in the limitations of man. To me, any attempt to define God is at root an attempt to elevate the station of man on their own terms. It's been done innumerable times and destined to fall short.

Apr 6 2013:
So basically your answer is "no" due to the human cognitive ability, and even if we attempt to we will fail.
And that we can not imagine anything too "powerful" (ect..).
Playing Devil's Advocate what would you say to "Christian" or "Muslims" who define God as the "eternal all powerful creator, who governs our universe". They have come up with a pretty good definition of their God.

Apr 6 2013:
I would say that "eternal all powerful creator, who governs our universe" is descriptive rather than defining and the description is only in part. Essentially, I submit that God can not be defined because to define is to limit. Given the example of "all powerful" is One who can not be limited and therefore can not be defined. This is where man's wrestlng with the concept of God continually falls short. In trying to nail Him down within their understanding, they begin weighing someone or something far, far less than He is.

Apr 6 2013:
Good answer (I liked it!) :D
Playing Devil Advocate (again :P), you could say God's power was limited, and that "why does God have to be "all powerful". For I feel that you may be going along the same lines of the ontological argument, which I would probably disagree with. (But I won't go into reason why, until you say whether you believe the ontological argument or not!)

Apr 8 2013:
Many do say that God's power is limited, but I would not be among them. Neither do I rely solely on ontological argument as positive proof of His existence because, as is written in Romans 1, His attributes (and, perhaps to the root of your inquiry, existence) are observable from what He created (though the list of observable attributes is far from all inclusive). At bottom it really does hinge on Faith; not a blind illogical or unreasoned Faith, but a Faith of submission. For like a parent can not do much with a disobedient child, so too are we unworkable in disobedience. In Faith of obedience and submission, He is confirmed; both in reason and logic as well as revealed. This probably does not do much to clarify, but given the space and my limitations it is all I can offer now. Shalom aleichem.

Apr 8 2013:
While a quark does not have a mind that we know of, what holds it in place and, more pointedly, why? And to claim that humans are the most intelligent beings we know in the universe purposely refuses to recognize the claims of God and at eh least presumptuous considering that we know so little.

I would say that the view that essentially holds God as a catchall for things we do not understand is the product of placing none higher than man himself and predicated on the denial of events of [benevolent] Divine revelation. To the former I would say that simply because man is far and away on a higher intellectual plane than what we know is a narrow view, far narrower than the earthcentric view of those opposed to Galileo. To the latter, I would ask how it is that the Faith has endured for so long?

Apr 9 2013:
I hold that belief in God is more reasonable than disbelief. Science can not explain how anything comes from nothing. But even if hope is held out that it one day will, science can not explain the purpose---the big why? Science can only explain the how. The very concept of existence falls without answering the big why. I say that science is merely the discovery of what God has known from the beginning.

As to compelling evidence of the existence of God, I believe that the foregoing and my preceding cover that. Perhaps not to your satisfacion, but it is good start. I think the more burdensome proposition is in disbelief.

To believe in the big bang / evolutionary theory with no underlying purpose for any life at all is hard put to justify itself; and aliens still will not answer pupose nor the any-matter-coming-from-nothing shortcoming (where did aliens come from?). Believe or disbelieve---that is the question put to every one of us. From what I know and have experienced, belief in (and more importantly, submission to) God is the far more reasonable conclusion.

Apr 11 2013:
Saying a god made the universe doesn't explain who it happened either.

How did this god do that.

Magic?

Where did this god come from?

You just move the questions about the physical universe back to questions about practically non existent god.

I don't really get it nunya, how answering a mystery with an even greater mystery actually helps explain anything. How does saying god did it plug a gap in our knowledge when you don't know anything concrete about this god, how it came to exist, and how it made the universe?